At, Supreme Court of India
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
For the Petitioner: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate, Fereshte Sethna, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Nishant Rao, Rohan Talwar, Aniket Nimbalkar, Aboli Mandlik, Advocates, E.C. Agrawala, AOR. For the Respondents: ------
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.2. In view of nature of the order we propose to pass in this petition we are disposing of this petition without issuing notice. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the injunction was granted against the petitioner and petitioner has been directed to disclose the full particulars of its assets and also not to dispose of the assets of the Company. The said order was challenged before the Division Bench, whereby the only modification made by the Division Bench of the High Court was to the extent that the disclosure of assets be made in sealed cover before the Single Judge.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the urgency in the matter is because of the restraint order which was granted by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petitioner was restrained from selling of its assets. It is contended that much prior to the litigation, one power plant barge was agreed to be sold to Turkish buyer and sale proceeds of the same was to be deposited directly with the secured creditor €˜Life Insurance Corporation€™, which is a statutory body. It is contended that the worth of the petitioner/company is well above Rs.288 crores, even after the sale of the said power plant barge. The submission thus is that the learned Single Judge ought to have permitted the petitioner to sell the power plant barge, the sale proceeds of which were not to be paid to the petitioner but to the secured creditor, which is a statutory body i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India.4. While disposing of the appeal, learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had observed in paragraph 6 €œthe learned Single Judge shall hear both the parties on 03.03.2021 and shall dispose of the petition finally€.5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the said direction of learned Division Bench, matter was listed on 9 dates but could not be taken up and is still pending.6. Keeping in view the urgency in the matter and also in view of the facts and circumstances, we dispose of this petition with the direction that the matter be listed before the vacation Judge of the High Court on 01.06.2021, on which date, the application of the petitioner for stay/modification of order dated 02.02.2021 in so far as permitting disposal of the power plant barge to the Turkish Company, be considered, and if the same cannot be decided on that date, the matter be disposed of as expeditiously as possible but not later than one week from the said date and in light of the ob
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
servations and submissions recorded hereinabove.7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court forthwith for compliance of this order.8. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.